Summary Of Richmond Hill Man Found Not Criminally Responsible In Killing His Sister

The article titled ‘Richmond hill Man Found not Criminally Responsible in Killing his Sister’ written in the Toronto Star on October 19, 2014 was a prominent criminal case greatly discussed throughout all of York Region. This Public law case describes the tragic death of Jeannine Ross after being brutally murdered by her brother Jonathan Ross. This is categorized as a public law case because it is between the accused, Jonathan Ross and government as he broke the law by completing second degree murder. Jonathan Ross suffered from a mental disorder known as schizophrenia which caused him to believe that his sister was a robot. After digging through his sister's skull to find the chip, police walked in on murdered Jeanine and bloody Jonathan.

A legal implication is that even though the mental disorder is to blame, everyone needs to be treated equally under the law and there will be a consequence for his actions. This means that there must be a certain extent to the leeway that people suffering from mental illness have. Due to his mental illness, it may not be severe as other cases but the main priority should be getting him stable. The people who think Jonathan Ross should be charged for the murder may disagree with the judge's decision to hold him responsible because they do not think a mental problem should be an excuse for taking someone's life. Whereas on the other hand, others, including the Ross family, think that care in a mental institution will be the best consequence as the accused was not in control of his actions. If I were a judge, I would rule that Jonathan Ross would be responsible for the murder of his sister but would be spending the majority of his sentence in a mental institution, until he was stable enough to serve in jail. Obviously, making sure he gets better would be the first priority but it is also important to prove to others that there should be no excuse for murdering

This private law case describes the reaction of parents awaiting the arrival of their child, only to later find out that the sperm donor, was diagnosed with several mental disorderos. This is a private law case because the 10 families sued the company Xytex for providing inaccurate information from their donor. Aggeles, their donor, claimed to be a doctor, healthy and as smart as Einstein which obviously was not the case. Providing sperm for 36 children, which all could possibly carry the gene of a mental disorder was not something these parents signed up for. Xytex claimed that they aware parents that they do not verify donors background information. A social implication from this case is that businesses need to pay close attention to the people they choose to use as sperm donors. If they want to ensure that they will not be sued they should make sure all of their work is covered. A legal implication is that communication is the most important part in a lawsuit because telling the truth will make sure you don't lose money. The company Xytex disagrees with the claim because they believe that they are not responsible and provided information stating that they do not check the donors background information. Whereas, on the other hand, the families who have used Aggeles’ sperm